1998; Rated R; 87 Minutes
Edward Furlong: Pecker
Christina Ricci: Shelley
Mary Kay Place: Joyce
Marthat Plimption: Tina
Brendan Sexton III: Matt
Produced by Joseph
M. Coracciolo Jr., John Fiedler, Pat Moran, Mark Ordesky,
Joe Reuitte, Mark Tarlov and Jonathan Weisgal; Directed
and screenwritten by John Waters
by DAVID KEYES
is the type of movie where you sit there and wonder how
bad it gets. When it reaches that level of badness, you
sit there and watch it get worse and worse, and once it's
just as bad as you think it can get, it's gets so bad that
you either fall asleep or excuse yourself into the bathroom
so you can vomit.
is one of the most lacking movies that has ever existed.
It is an artificial, intelligently-blind hunk of junk that
exists only to waste time and money. Those who made it probably
will never sit through it themselves, because it's likely
obvious to anyone who sees it that not even film makers
can be this screwed up. It's so despicable that it awakened
anger in me that only movies like "Dazed And Confused" had.
Congratulate 1998 for containing not one, but two of the
worst movies of all time. If there's anymore like it on
the way, it might be time to change careers.
is something, finally, that manages to define the true state
of movie badness. It could not have been more joyless or
more lifeless even if Howard Stern had made it. It's not
necessarily so inept that it's nauseating; on top of it's
uninteresting elements lies a story and direction that are
so lifeless and dull that I'm at a loss for words when I
attempt to describe it.
is the name of the star of the picture, who is played by
Edward Furlong. Pecker was named so because he pecked at
his food in a younger state of childhood. Yet, unless his
parents named him about two years into his life, how in
the world would they know at birth that they peck at his
Pecker is an artist--or rather, a photographer, who has
the passion for taking pictures of the modern street subjects,
like prostitutes, hostile police battles, etc. His pictures
are considered the illusion of modern society; portraits
of taboo and fragmented subjects, which is, of course, routine
for the average John Waters film.
me explain Mr. Waters before I go any further. This is a
unique and over expressive man; a man who has been dubbed
'the king of trash talk' by taking certain pop culture subjects
and displaying them in often excruciating and grotesque
Flamingos" was one of his early movies, and by far his most
bizarre. It displayed such disgusting mannerism that I wouldn't
dare talk about here. Actually, I've never actually seen
the movie, and judging from the subject matter invovled
(like eating Canine bowel and having intercourse with chickens),
I never will. Material like that sounds too gross to handle.
"Pecker" isn't gross. Instead, it's lifeless and dull. Pecker
doesn't consider himself to be a great photographer, but
once a press agent sees his work, she's impressed, and before
you know it, Pecker becomes an overnight success.
but the title character is the most tolerated. The others
of the movie are hardly worth mentioning, because they aren't
developed well, they lack characteristic integrity and emotion,
and have nothing special about them other than their names.
And this, of course, is a surprise, because I expected to
see smutty characters and an average smutty Waters film
when I entered the theater. But I emerged from it finding
that the trashlessness of it made it completely un-energetic.
Of course "Pecker" doesn't get as bad as Waters' generally
dirty movies, but it doesn't get any better, either.
usually don't get zero stars from being boring, but "Pecker"
does. It doesn't even have the strength to push buttons
like "Pink Flamingos" did, nor does it have the artistic
distinction to amuse the audience for more than twenty minutes.
Geez, can't John Waters ever get it right? Is it time he
hope that answer comes before his next movie.
may have missed something in this movie, since "Pecker,"
I consider, is the boy's actual name. After this review
was published, a source informed me that 'Pecker' was merely
a nickname he inherited. If this is indeed true, I regrettably
Take that as another criticism. If a movie bores one so
much, it's sometimes natural to miss a tidbit here and there.
1998, David Keyes, Cinemaphile.org.
Please e-mail the author here
if the above review contains any spelling or grammar mistakes.